The list is exhaustive: Rangel, Wilkerson, Clinton, Jefferson, Stevens, etc. Yet when it comes time to vote, these characteristics are reinforced. With Clinton revealing his 205,000 donors of the estimated $500 million for his library fund (yes, library fund), you have to ask yourself "What do the donors want in return?" It's basically a slush fund for "philanthropic" endeavors. On its face philanthropy is defined as 'altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons'. At its roots it is the redistribution of money according to power and influence. As an individualist, I reject philanthropic altruism as a false cover of innocence for those seeking to control morality.
"There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values?" -Ayn Rand
When the two co-exist in a single entity of authority, corruption will reign.
The NYPost provides the following graphic to depict some of his larger international donors and their possible intended motives. Is it really that illogical to ask why the Saudi's donated $25 million in state dollars? Breibart also has an article detailing domestic and foreign donors.
It is not surprising that Ethical opinion polls consistently rank politicians among the car salesmen, telemarketers, and IRS agents. All professions you would probably lie about when asked at a party "what do you do?". Here is a link to the Gallup poll of Honesty and Ethics by Profession.
Think about this the next time you are casting a ballot!!
Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in the 1st Amendment. Say whatever you want. If you're a moron, I may point that out...if I have time. :P